MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7099485120

THREE ESSAYS IN CROSS-BORDER FINANCE

2010· article· en· W7099485120 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceStock exchangeStock (firearms)Capital asset pricing modelAsset (computer security)Financial marketStock marketCorporate finance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This Ph.D. dissertation investigates various areas in financial economics: market microstructure, corporate finance, asset pricing, and financial econometrics. The three comprising essays have a common ground: cross-border finance. Chapter One documents the impact of differential private information on relative asset pricing across borders by studying the probability of informed trading (PIN) for Canadian shares traded on exchanges separated by Niagara Falls. Relative to the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), the Toronto Stock Ex-change (TSX) has more informed trades and accounts for a larger information share, indicating that informed traders contribute to cross-border price discov-ery. The information imbalance across the two markets is associated with small but positive price premiums for New York trades. The dynamics of these pre-miums depends on trade informedness. Lastly, the PIN of a TSX-listed share typically rises upon cross-listing on the NYSE, which is consistent with negative abnormal returns of the original listing. The theory of corporate governance suggests that managers of poorly gov-

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicJob Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior→French-language works237,207→